Fighting back the effects of Climate Change is our generation’s moonshot.

I want you to stop and actually think about that for a sec. Forget about Trump, Obama, Sanders, and Clinton. Think back to Kennedy. What would JFK have done if he had been born a generation later than he was, and had just been elected President a few months ago?

WWJFKD?

More to the point: How do you unite a divided country around one common cause? How do you inspire an entire country to come together and solve a problem that is so big that it seems unsolvable?

Fighting back the effects of Climate Change should be our generation’s moonshot, because it is our generation’s moonshot. Not going to Mars. This. (Mars is the next one. We can start work on Mars now, but we have to tackle this problem before we can really invest ourselves in Mars.)

Any decent president (or presidential candidate) would have been able to articulate and sell this. I’m not even being an environmentalist right now, and you don’t have to believe that climate change is man-made to follow what I am saying. My argument is 100% politically-agnostic. I am talking about pragmatic political and economic strategy.

1) Point to the bleachers and take the initiative. That’s how you become a leader without having to keep reminding everyone that you’re “the leader.” If you have to say it, you aren’t doing it. Leading is like effective writing: Don’t tell me. Show me.

2) Fighting back the effects of climate change as a nation, as a species even, could, over the next couple of decades, create millions of new STEM, industrial, and infrastructure jobs in the US that will replace the old jobs we no longer need:

You couldn’t ask for a better job creation engine than this. And not just an artificial, unsustainable job creation engine either (like promising to bring all the coal mining jobs back to WV, which, even if you somehow managed to pull it off, wouldn’t do much to create jobs in other parts of the US). This job creation engine is 100% in tune with the kinds of jobs we need to create to address the broad sets of challenges that a changing planet will bring to our doorstep over the next 75-100 years. Hell, it even gives us a roadmap for the overdue revamping of our entire educational system, and that alone should be enough to make everyone, regardless of their political views, pay attention.

3) Give people something to build towards and be proud of, and you’ll inspire them. Nobody is inspired by political bickering and media sideshows. Entertained, sure. Inspired, no. They’re inspired by hope, and pride, and by doing and building things that fucking matter.

Part 2: Fear and Loathing in False Political Narratives

Quick tangent on political strategy before we get back to our moonshot discussion: By acknowledging people’s collective fears head-on, a leader can suck the power out of those fears. Here’s a taste of what that looks like: The coal mining jobs aren’t coming back, but the clean energy sector is creating a shit-ton of jobs, so there’s nothing to worry about. Your parents’ old manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back either, but we can invent entirely new ones now, and they’ll pay even better.

And the best part is that addressing economic friction caused by changes like this is mostly a tactical problem. We have big data analytics solutions now that can help our labor force anticipate and adapt to these shifts. A moonshot president would task the Department of Labor to work with the private sector to develop tools to help blue, gray, and white collar workers train for and select shorter paths to their next gigs.

Fact 1: You cannot fix 21st century problems with 20th century thinking.

Fact 2: You cannot hide from facts or the effects of physics behind walls – both figurative and literal.

While we’re on the subject of old thinking: Immigrants weren’t the problem a hundred years ago, and they still aren’t now. Greedy CEOs, “welfare queens”, “snowflakes”, “the Washington elites”, Muslims, evangelicals, and “Hollywood” aren’t the problem either. They never were. Let me tell you something that seems to have been edited out of the general cultural narrative we keep getting bombarded with these days: Your neighbors want the same things out of life that you do – whether they are black or white, married or single, gay or straight, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, democrat or republican… it doesn’t matter – they want the same things:

People just want to feel safe and happy. They want to be economically agile and free to live their lives any way they see fit, and get through their day without having to deal with an ounce more bullshit than is absolutely necessary. They want their kids to be able to go to good schools and be successful and happy and safe too. They want their parents and loved ones to have access to decent medical care whether they are rich or poor. Sure, we may disagree on some issues, like abortion rights, and gay marriage, and whether gun ownership should be regulated a little more than it is, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. 99.999% of us want 99% of the same things as everyone else, regardless of what pundits keep telling you on your TV.

Part 3: Inflection Points, Windows of Opportunity, and Perhaps The Most Important Political Question of Our Times

Back to our moonshot discussion:

Do you know what you call people who find scapegoats to blame when the problems they were hired to fix don’t get fixed? Assholes. Useless assholes, to be more precise, because they’re both: Assholes AND useless.

Conversely, do you know what you call people who turn problems into opportunities? People who roll up their sleeves instead of pointing fingers, get to work fixing stuff, and empower others to do the same? We call those people leaders.

Stop electing assholes. Start electing leaders.

How hard is it for the wealthiest and most advanced country in the world – a country with only two major political parties, so it doesn’t get much simpler than that – to find a couple of presidential candidates with both the brains to understand something so simple as this, AND the heart to run on that platform and give us our next moonshot moment?

I’m serious. This is what Republicans and Democrats should be running on. The argument shouldn’t be whether or not this is the path forward, but what the fastest, smartest, and economically viable way of achieving it should be. It’s 2017. The ice caps and glaciers are melting. Our oceans are becoming toxic to sea life. Our rivers are drying up and we’re at risk of destroying our aquifers. We are looking down the barrel of vanishing coast lines, food shortages, droughts, massive unemployment and civil unrest, and increasingly violent climate events. This is our civilization’s next inflection point. Sitting by and doubling down on coal isn’t going to fix anything.

This inflection point can either be the start of a domino effect of devastating catastrophes we will become increasingly powerless to respond to, or the moment we decide to put our collective genius to work to do more than just plant flags on space rocks, disrupt the taxi cab industry, and add puppy filters to our Snapchat stories. It’s just a matter of deciding whether we are going to go on playing pretend, pointing fingers, and building useless walls, or decide to turn climate change into a massive opportunity to build a better future and finally get around to fixing a whole lot of proverbial broken windows around the country and the planet.

So here is perhaps the most important political question of our times: Where is our moonshot president?

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/8881-2/feed/28881Creators, Toolkits, and the Importance of Nurturing Design Ecosystemshttp://olivierblanchard.net/creators-toolkits-and-the-importance-of-nurturing-design-ecosystems/
http://olivierblanchard.net/creators-toolkits-and-the-importance-of-nurturing-design-ecosystems/#commentsWed, 14 Dec 2016 18:04:00 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8865Continue Reading →]]>So there I was, sitting on someone’s idea of industrial outdoor seating – a massive, austere concrete bench laced with steel bands every three feet to either keep enterprising skaters from shredding nosegrinds off it or discourage daring homeless peddlers from using it as a bed – having tea with Anne Asensio, Dassault Systemes’ Vice-President of Design Experience. We had half an hour to chat about technology, digital transformation, and the future of virtualization across a breadth of industries, and Anne had suggested that we go outside to enjoy a little sunshine, a little fresh air, and a break from the business of the conference.

She probably didn’t realize it, but we had already begun our conversation inside. I had spent the better part of thirty minutes listening to her address a roundtable of influencers and journalists. She was smart, witty, opinionated, courageous, blunt, knowledgeable, eminently competent – obviously a creative, but not ostensibly so. Her unequivocal French accent and easy, natural fashion sense reminded me of home. I hadn’t said much during that roundtable session. I didn’t have to. She had plenty to say, and with more energy than everyone else at that table combined. Judging from the spark in her eye, the enthusiasm with which she talked about how she had come to work at Dassault Systemes and what she did there, and how she insisted on doing it, it was clear that she could have talked about design for hours – and no one within earshot would have been bored. At any rate, the roundtable ended, we were introduced, and we ended up outside with our cups of tea, sitting on what I imagine park benches were like behind the iron curtain at the height of the Cold War. It occurred to me that the one great thing about concrete benches is that no one will ever chop them up and burn them to try and stay warm.

As we started, I was kind of expecting our chat to veer towards some kind of tangential discussion of new 3DS virtualization products, or futurist musings about augmented retail experience design, or even a conversation about the role that virtual modeling software might soon play in every facet of business management. That isn’t where our conversation went at all. Instead, we spent half an hour talking about the role of imagination in business, the unsung courage of design-focused leaders, and the critical role that creators – human creators – will continue to play even as machines begin to automate non-creative tasks and business functions.

Sitting down with executives to ask them questions isn’t hard: You do a little research, you write down a list of questions, rearrange them in order of importance, and the rest boils down to having basic social skills and a modicum of professional tact as you listen to their answers and record them for later use. As Anne and I sat there chatting over tea, apart from the rest of the event, it occurred to me that my entire questionnaire had become irrelevant the moment we set foot outside. This wasn’t going to be a typical interview. It couldn’t be. In fact, it wasn’t going to be an interview at all. I don’t think that Anne was particularly interested in talking about technology or business. I think that she wanted to talk about creativity, and imagination, and the ultimate business asset: people.

Had you been there, you would have been quick to note that our conversation was barely a degree away from being about how to invest in human capital in an increasingly automated world, how to frame the underpinnings of Human Resources 4.0, what the Future of Work should look like, and the importance of the human, emotional, and aesthetic core of innovation.

When we indirectly discussed the gargantuan struggle of turning risk-averse business cultures into innovative, forward-thinking cultures, and how design thinking had to be a core element of that process, we were really talking about change management for a digitally-disrupted world, though never quite in such obvious terms.

When we talked about courageous millennial creatives, whether they specialize in product design, experience design, content design, or app development, we were really talking about the impact that design-literate leadership and digitally-savvy business cultures will have on recruiting, developing, and retaining tomorrow’s innovation giants.

When we discussed the visceral need by creatives and innovative thinkers to imagine, create and explore new design horizons and entirely new ideas, we were really talking about educational paths, and ecosystems of innovation, and the sorts of tools that give this particular class of individual the ability to translate dreams into a reality that we can all experience for ourselves.

There was something rather meta about our conversation: It was layered, richer in metaphors and levels than it seemed on the surface. We were just two people chatting about design over tea, but at the same time, we were talking about the fundamental underpinnings of a fast-changing world in which creators now had the tools and technologies to make just about any dream come true.

I don’t think that the term creators ever came up, but I couldn’t get it out of my head afterwards. I still can’t. I think that the term applies to a business function that is bound to become increasingly relevant as industries begin to shift towards digital automation, and innovation takes on a more central role in the day-to-day of every type of business, from retail and travel to healthcare and banking. Creators: Those creative thinkers who like to build and tweak things; the sorts of people whom companies like Tesla, Apple, Nike, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook have invested in and bet on; the sorts of people currently working on restoring mobility to victims of spinal injuries, using VR to help patients manage pain and stress, curing cancer and dementia, and designing the stress-free hospital experiences of the future; the sorts of people working on developing entirely new materials, habitats and propulsion systems to send humans to Mars and farm the ocean floor; the sorts of people developing smart cities, self-driving cars, intelligent homes, enchanted objects and device-agnostic human-like interfaces for the IoT; the sorts of people who will give the companies that hire and nurture them, or fund their projects, an undeniable advantage over the companies that don’t.

Creators aren’t necessarily the Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerbergs of the next few decades, mind you. Many will never see their names printed on a box or mentioned in a news headline. Most, in fact, will not, but their names will no doubt figure on countless patents without which those boxes and ads wouldn’t exist in the first place. They will all play a part in saving lives, in building a better future for people around the world, in driving us all forward in their own way. That’s an exciting thought, and a source of relief given how many challenges we face as a civilization, let alone as a species.

Every new job created post-2035 is likely to be created as a result of innovation by creators who haven’t yet entered the workforce, and every new job created post-2025 is likely to be the result of ideas brought to fruition by creators currently in the workforce today. Think about that. These jobs won’t be created by machines. They won’t be created by old men in penthouse offices, struggling to understand how email works. They won’t be created by legislation or elected officials. They will be created as a result of the imagination of creators, and the degree to which their ideas can survive the difficult and treacherous journey from the inside of their heads to the practicality of the real world. Creators are the real engines of industry. And although we never directly talked about any of that, there I was, at a Dassault Systemes event – the company with the design, virtualization, modeling, and management toolkit for creators to turn their dreams into reality – focusing on the human aspects of culture, leadership, creativity, and how to leverage them to overcome resistance to change. We didn’t need to talk about the toolkit. Everything going on inside the venue was already about that. Our conversation needed to be about the creators, the sort of leadership that recognizes their immense value, and the types of social, educational, economic, political, and corporate ecosystems that help nurture, develop and enable them in order to make everything else work.

The best digital and virtualization tools in the world wouldn’t do anyone much good if creators were to become systematically ignored, or commoditized, or undervalued, if not altogether forgotten in the daily shuffle of sales numbers, business development and corporate PR.

After we parted ways, I thought about why we had walked out the door to sit outside, a little away from the event itself. I thought about the symbolism of putting a literal wall between us and the branded signage, of making our conversation somehow stand physically apart from the product demonstrations, and the roundtables, and people in suits wearing badges and name tags. It wasn’t just about getting fresh air and a little sunshine. It was also about creating a space of its own for a conversation that needed to be about what wasn’t being explicitly discussed inside. Inside, everyone was talking about tools and specs and capabilities. It wasn’t the place to have a technology-agnostic discussion about talent, inspiration, aspirations, dreams, motives, and the human aspects of design and innovation. Anne knew, I think, that the obvious connection with what Dassault Systemes does, and what role it plays in empowering creators, would inevitably find me once I started putting my notes together.

One thing that I didn’t immediately appreciate was the cleverness of a company like Dassault Systemes having someone like Anne in a senior leadership role. It would be easy to create a leadership culture made up of marketing execs, sales managers, engineers, and senior operations people: Build, build, build, sell, sell, sell, look over the quarterly numbers, repeat. Like a lot of other companies, they could have done that. But at some point, a decision was made to broaden the perspective of the company’s leadership team – a decision to not focus solely on the obvious but also feed and nurture the more abstract and less quantifiable aspects of innovation, culture, design and invention – despite the detours and caveats it would almost certainly inject into complex discussions about direction and strategic vision. It is the sort of courageous decision that, in my experience, almost always gives businesses their greatest competitive edge. It is the very foundation of the creative genius that propels some companies to become global industry leaders. I mentioned Amazon, Apple, Google and Tesla earlier, but it’s also what gave companies like Cartier, Levi’s, Ford and Disney their edge back in the day. These companies too, understood that harnessing the genius of human imagination and inspiration was like catching lightning in a bottle. Without a mechanism to do that, and to keep doing that, a company is just an also-in enterprise with little hope of ever disrupting its own market or outpacing its competitors. I already knew that Dassault Systemes, as the 3D software company, was a key player in the Digital Transformation space, but I hadn’t appreciated the extent to which its leadership team was invested in creating the sort of internal culture and business ecosystem that would continue to propel it safely ahead of the wave of technological disruption that almost everyone else is struggling to keep up with. This particular strategic advantage has nothing to do with proprietary new technology, or an amazing new product. It is simply this: understanding the importance of nurturing and empowering dreamers, innovators, and creators.

The message I walked away with was this: hire as many creators as you can, and promote them to management and leadership roles. Infuse your company with their creative curiosity and design sensibilities. Build centers of excellence around them the same way you aim to build centers of excellence around technologies and business practices, then fuse them all together. There’s a balancing act at play here, a sort of left brain and right brain equation that has to find its own unique self-sustaining balance mechanism. That’s what sets great companies apart from merely good ones. It may seem like a small thing, but investing in creators is at least as important as investing in the right technology solutions. Maybe it doesn’t seem as important because creativity and innovation don’t necessarily show up in quarterly sales reports and P&Ls, but it is.

“Innovation” isn’t just a catch-all abstraction. It’s a system, a method. It has roots and structure. Ask Apple. Ask Tesla. Ask Alphabet. It takes work and diligence not only to build but to keep up. Fostering innovation year after year and building an entire business ecosystem around it, without ever losing track of where it comes from, is extremely difficult. It’s both a business science and a creative art form – equal parts of each. It took a cup of tea and a breath of fresh air to remind me of that, and I am smarter for it. Now, all we need to make my next outdoor meeting a little bit better is for someone with the right idea and the right tools to rethink the design of outdoor public seating.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/creators-toolkits-and-the-importance-of-nurturing-design-ecosystems/feed/18865Mobile World Congress 2016 Report: Digital Transformation, Cognitive Computing, and “Mobile First”http://olivierblanchard.net/mobile-world-congress-2016-report-digital-transformation-cognitive-computing-and-mobile-first/
http://olivierblanchard.net/mobile-world-congress-2016-report-digital-transformation-cognitive-computing-and-mobile-first/#respondWed, 02 Mar 2016 17:35:30 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8825Continue Reading →]]>It’s interesting to watch people’s reactions when I bring up IBM and “mobile” in the same sentence outside of work. The average person probably still thinks of IBM as being a computer company, a hardware company. The images IBM evokes for them first are probably the logo, then some notion of a computer or a server – definitely more IT than “mobile.” The connection isn’t quite there yet in their minds, probably because IBM’s relationship to mobile isn’t consumer-facing. When I bring up IBM and “mobile” in the same sentence to digital business and tech professionals, however, I get a completely different response. They lean in and listen. They know the conversation is about to turn really interesting.

To understand why the intersection of IBM and mobile is so interesting, you have to take a step back from brand names and products for a minute, and consider the massive technological changes that have affected our world in recent years. Journalists like to talk about the computer revolution, and the internet revolution, and even the mobile revolution, but there’s actually something bigger going on. We are in the midst of a massive digital transformation. When I say “we,” I mean the whole world. By 2025, over 90% of the world’s population will own a mobile device, and over two thirds of those will be connected to the internet. Most human beings will be accessing the internet from a tiny device that fits in their pocket, a device they can take everywhere, a device that can help them organize their day, buy their food, pay their bills, create art, access news and information, connect with anyone around the world instantly, just for starters. As computer sales level out, mobile sales are still growing. Smart phones are cheaper than most computers, more portable and convenient, more fun, easier to use. They are a more natural tool for us. They fit in our hands. Our opposable thumbs let us type and swipe with more natural dexterity than a keyboard. Phones can do pretty much anything a laptop can do, and in many cases, they can do more. For all of these reasons, mobile is taking over the web, and as it does, business tools are increasingly following suit and adopting a “mobile first” approach to business.

The thing about shifting to mobile first is that it requires a certain amount of transformation within an organization. Moving mobile from the edges of the business and into its core means that companies have to undergo a digital transformation: The business model has to be redefined. IT’s role has to be redefined. Processes have to become more fluid, more integrated. Data has to flow freely from one end of the organization to the other. This takes planning, access to technology services, access to digital transformation knowledge. That sort of change isn’t as hard as people think, but it requires a certain degree of vision, savoir-faire, and of course the right tools to pull it off properly.

That’s where IBM fits in. Think about the IBM ecosystem: First, you have the cloud, which powers pretty much everything these days, from retail inventory and logistics to websites and phone apps. Data has moved to the cloud. Computing power has moved to the cloud. Basically, everything IT touches has moved to the cloud in some way. Even hybridized IT (where legacy systems and the cloud share the workload) is growing increasingly dependent on cloud storage and cloud solutions.

Second, you have cognitive computing, which you can also refer to as AI: Intelligent computers that can learn on their own and interact with humans using natural language. IBM’s Watson is probably the most famous cognitive computing projects in the world. So much so that “project” doesn’t really describe it anymore. Watson is a formidable technical achievement. He can have conversations with you, he can create recipes, teach history, argue a legal case. Watson is helping researchers find a cure for cancer, civil engineers design smart cities, and businesses make sense of their data. More importantly, thanks to the cloud, Watson can be anywhere. You don’t have to physically plug into a giant computer. You can talk with Watson or use his computing power from (you guessed it) a mobile device.

Third, you have Big Data. As our lives increasingly touch the digital world, everything we do is converted to data: what we like on Facebook, what we share on Twitter, what we post to Instagram. Our browsing and shopping behaviors are converted to data. The conversations we have online are converted to data (think keyword analysis). Where we go and how often we go there is data (your phone can capture that information). Where you live, what you do, who you know, where you work, what your hobbies are, what toppings you like on your pizza: data, data, data. Imagine billions of people generating data every single day. Ten years ago, computing power was still trying to catch up with that ocean of data. Today, it has caught up. From a technical standpoint, Big Data is about a lot of things: Capture, Capacity, Storage, Analysis, and Distribution, mostly. For the rest of us, and especially marketers, analysts and strategists, data is just the raw material for insights.

Fourth, you have the internet of things, or IoT for short: Any connected device or smart device belongs in this category: smart phones, smart TVs, smart refrigerators, self-driving cars, wearable tech equipped with sensors and transmitters, and so on. For the sake of this conversation, let’s pay particular attention to beacons and sensors.

All right. The key to understanding the importance of all this lies in being able to see how these four categories of tech work together. Cognitive computing by itself is a nice research project, but limited in scope until you combine Watson and Big Data. That combination is a force-multiplier: Big data is good, Watson is good, but together, they are great. And I don’t mean just great. I mean great by an almost exponential factor. Now add cloud into the mix and you suddenly have the potential for unlimited scale. Finally, bring sensors into the equation, and you can start getting really specific about the type of data you want to look at, and how this targeted data can be quickly turned into valuable insights.

Let’s talk examples, because I want to illustrate the potential for this confluence of capacity. Let’s say you’re a retailer, and you don’t really have a lot of data on what is happening in your stores. You measure foot traffic (in and out), and you measure sales. Maybe you have a CRM system that lets you track some shoppers’ behaviors if they use their card or your app every time they make a purchase. Let’s say that you are looking for ways to grow your revenue and profitability, but you can’t think of ways of doing that beyond spending more on advertising. Let’s fix that.

What you could do is pick a store to see if what I just explained might help you with your problem. Let’s call this a test. A pilot program. What you could do is dip your toe in the IoT world by installing small wifi beacons/sensors throughout your store. You could do this in a grid pattern, or just place the beacons in strategic locations that coincide with sections and departments. The cloud computing piece sits in the back end, right along the software that runs what is about to become a mobile engagement play. Here is the data you are about to get your hands on: As shoppers move throughout the store, their phones will ping whatever wifi beacon they come within range of, and that ping will register their location in relation to that beacon. In other words, your foot traffic data just became granular. Not only can you track changes in store visits, you can now track foot traffic by department or section. From this, you can visualize high traffic areas and low traffic areas. You can also look at changes over time. (Some areas may see higher traffic immediately following the launch of an ad campaign for a specific product or sale, giving you some insights into your campaign ROI.)

At its most basic, this granular traffic information can help you identify underperforming sections in that store. Equipped with that insight into a problem you may not have had eyes on yet, you can now do something about it. Maybe those sections need better lighting. Maybe displays and shelves can be moved to facilitate a transition or traffic flow from adjacent sections. Maybe it needs mirrors. Maybe that section needs to be moved somewhere else in the store. Once you make your change, you can immediately see if it has an impact on traffic, which means you can test, improve, test, improve, test and improve again at will. The data is there for you to use at will and indefinitely. If you don’t want to make those decisions yourself, cognitive computing can help suggest solutions and model them for you.

Now let’s up our game a little bit and add sensors, say, on coat hangers or the shelves themselves. You can even use sensors in the price tags or in packaging. Again, with a cloud back-end, you would be able to track whether or not high traffic results in a proportional amount of sales compared to lower traffic areas. In other words, are shoppers just moving through areas to get to another part of the store, or are they stopping to buy items? These kinds of insights can help you interrupt, slow or redirect traffic through certain areas of the store to help increase product discovery (and hopefully sales). It can also help you test where products perform the best inside the store. Now, you can more easily focus on optimizing sales for specific items or product categories using a combination of IoT, cloud, and cognitive computing.

We’re only scratching the surface, by the way. Let’s add customer ID into the mix: Say some shoppers have your app on your phone. They’re loyal customers. Now your system can track specific customers when they interact with your business. If they have looked for an item on your website, your system knows it. Every time they have made a purchase, your system recorded it. Cognitive computing is already creating a dynamic profile of that customer based on what they buy, how often they transact with you, how much they spend, how they prefer to shop (in the store, on the web, from their phone, etc.) Now that they are in the store, your system can analyze where they go, where they stop, what they look at, and more importantly, what they look at but don’t buy. Say they have been by the same rack three times in the past month but didn’t buy anything from it. Obviously, they are looking for something. Either you don’t have it in the right size or color, or they’re on the fence about the price. You can test that by letting the system (cognitive computing to the rescue) generate an offer specifically tailored to overcome this obstacle to purchase. If you have in-store digital displays, a special sale on that item category (or department) could pop up on displays near that customer. (Remember the beacons?) If a 20% off sale on that item doesn’t drive the purchase, you’ll know that the hangup probably wasn’t price. If it was, your system just drove a sale in real time by targeting the right customer in the right way at the right time. If no purchase is made, the system can be told to send that customer an email offer or a push notification on their phone. Compare this to scattershot advertising, and you can see how customized, personalized, highly targeted ads and offers will probably generate much greater ROI.

In the interest of not being too long-winded, let me stop here with our example. By this point, you should start to get the idea for the potential of these technologies when used in combination, and towards specific ends and outcomes. Retail is one area of focus, but there are more: Healthcare. Education. Sports. Tourism and travel. Banking. Finance. Design and engineering. Utilities… You name the industry, the vertical or even the specific line of business, and this cluster of technologies can help increase project velocity, iron out the wrinkles, amplify impact, lower costs… Everything becomes easier, smoother, more fluid. That’s how IBM fits in. And the beauty of it all is that IBM doesn’t just provide the ecosystem. It has already built specific solutions for key industries and lines of business. If all you want is market insights, you can focus on that. If your digital transformation is specific to healthcare or logistics, you can keep it as focused as you want. If your interest is limited to cybersecurity as it applies to the mobile workforce, there’s a specific solution for that as well. From Bluemix to MaaS 360, IBM is probably already 50 steps ahead of you, so its experts can help you get from here to there faster and better than if you tried to figure it all out on your own.

I will be writing more on the topic of digital transformation and the impact it can have on business outcomes, but for now, I am going to let you do your own research. To dig a little deeper into #IBMMobile and what we just talked about today, start by clicking here.

Cheers,

Olivier

Disclosure: I was engaged by IBM to attend #MWC16 and asked to write about my experience at the conference. Though I was remunerated for my time, the choice of topic for this post and my opinions are entirely my own.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/mobile-world-congress-2016-report-digital-transformation-cognitive-computing-and-mobile-first/feed/08825How to fix Twitter (and not just Twitter)http://olivierblanchard.net/how-to-fix-twitter-and-not-just-twitter/
http://olivierblanchard.net/how-to-fix-twitter-and-not-just-twitter/#commentsMon, 25 Jan 2016 19:09:10 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8796Continue Reading →]]>Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be one of those posts. You know… the usual click-bait fodder that content marketers are so fond of: a cursory parroting of the same five to ten tired points that every other content marketer looking for another speaking gig is busy working into their SEO strategy. I’m not here to waste your time with a list of features that Twitter should improve or fix. I am not even going to waste your time with musings about acquisitions and other technology plays that Twitter should jump on to save itself.

It isn’t going to be that kind of post. Today, we are going to look at what it takes to start saving a company like Twitter. This post is going to be about process, about method, about actionable insights that can be applied not only to Twitter but to other companies struggling with the same types of obstacles. So grab something to take notes with, because you’re going to want to do just that.

First things first: What is going on with Twitter?

To understand why we are even having this discussion, here’s a quick recap: Twitter is in trouble. The once immensely popular social platform has stopped attracting new users. Worse yet, many of Twitter’s existing users have all but abandoned Twitter to spend time on other platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Twitter’s stock price isn’t looking too great these days either. (A 55% drop in the last year.)

Twitter has been trying to extricate itself from this seeming death spiral in all the usual ways: 1) Layoffs. 2) Making “big” (but superficial) changes, like pushing the 160 character limit to 10,000 characters, for example. And now, we have entered phase 3: The big shakeup at the top. Over the weekend, several high ranking executives at Twitter abruptly left the company. Fast Company, the New York Times and Re/code reported that “the social media giant’s heads of product, media, engineering, and Vine [were] no longer with the company.” (FC) In addition, the company’s VP of Human Resources is departing as well, bringing that head count to five as I am typing these words. By the time you read this, the list will have probably grown.

Now, we could sit here and do a deep dive of everything that is wrong with Twitter today, and all of the reasons why this is happening, but let’s just go ahead and dispense with the 30,000 word dissertation and get down to brass tacks: At the core of the problem is the simple, basic fact that Twitter isn’t attracting people like it used to. Every single problem that Twitter is currently trying to fix is rooted in that one fact. And unless Twitter figures out how to get people to come back, character limits and layoffs and big shakeups won’t really matter a whole lot.

It isn’t about the features, stupid.

We’re all familiar with the concept of KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. Right? There’s another one MBAs and business leaders need to learn: IIATFS (It isn’t about the features, stupid). Yeah, I know, that acronym doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it’s equally important. Here’s a quick little exercise: What makes Coca Cola, Starbucks, Apple, Nike, Specialized, Yves St. Laurent, Kate Spade, BMW, Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram so popular with consumers?

Is it features? Nope. Sure, every one of these companies injects cool and smart features into their products, but plenty of soda manufacturers can mix syrup, food coloring and carbonation. Lots of coffee shops can mix steamed milk with coffee and pour it in a cup. Lots of companies make terrific smartphones, tablets and computers that do everything Apple products can do. I could go down the list but you get it: The features are important, yes, but they’re just the price of entry. More often than not, they aren’t really what separates winners from losers. Hence: It isn’t about the features, stupid.

Focusing on changing your product’s features when your company is faltering is a trap. (And a symptom of a fundamental inability to understand what the real problem is.) If you start with the features, you’re putting the cart ahead of the horse. My advice: Chill, stop, regroup, and start over.

So what’s the fix then?

The first step towards fixing any problem is to actually identify it. No assumptions. No knee-jerk reactions. If you miss this part, you’re going to be wasting your time trying to fix the wrong thing, and the real problem will remain unaddressed. Bad plan.

Once you have identified the problem, you need to actually understand it. Clearly. Again, leave your assumptions at the door. This isn’t a guessing game. It’s an understanding game. If you don’t understand the problem properly, you aren’t going to be able to figure out why it’s happening, let alone how to fix it. So to get anywhere, you have to ask the right questions. To ask the right questions, you have to start at the beginning:

What’s the problem? People aren’t coming here anymore.

Why aren’t they coming here anymore? Because they don’t care anymore.

Why don’t they care anymore? Because a) we aren’t giving them a reason to, and b) other companies are.

Why don’t people care about our company or product anymore? Tip: (It isn’t because users want their tweets to be 10,000 characters long, or because they want a broader menu of story formats.)

Companies typically get in trouble when they take a shortcut through this process and jump straight into “I need ideas, people! Come on. What’s something new that we could be doing?” It isn’t that it can’t work on occasion, but it wouldn’t hurt to go through a process that drives purpose rather than shiny new objects. (The “I need ideas, people” thing can’t work as solutions if said “ideas” don’t actually address a real problem.)

Don’t worry, this isn’t all I am going to share. It’ just a step in the process. I know this is super basic and elementary. It’s common sense, right? But take a step back and look at struggling companies all around you. (Not just Twitter.) Is everyone remembering to do this? Nope. Not even close.

Fact: Leadership and panic mode don’t always produce great results. It doesn’t matter of you’re a mom-and-pop retailer or a giant tech company with a huge audience and a brilliant track record. People are people, and when they get scared or stressed, they tend to forget how to make good decisions.

It’s kind of like martial arts and shooting: thousands of hours of practice in the dojo and the the range form the foundations for not only technique but muscle memory. That way, if one day, you are called upon to use those skills in the real world, regardless of how scared and stressed you are, muscle memory will take over. Your reactions, your reflexes, will bypass obstacles like panic, stress and indecision.

The business world is a little different in that a business executive usually can’t spend hours upon hours every week practicing his or her company rescue skills. Unless you happen to have someone on board who has done it a lot, there’s no muscle memory to rely on when your company needs to be fixed or saved. The next best thing though is to remember to rely on discipline, on the fundamentals. That’s the muscle memory you should rely on.

Without discipline, without the fundamentals, you will skip steps and take shortcuts, and the moment you do that you’re screwed. Every time. You can’t just wing this sort of thing. It never works.

Okay, now what? (Because it can’t be that simple, right?)

Right. Now that we’ve covered the basics, we can get to the real process of beginning to fix Twitter. But… if it isn’t about features, then what is it about?

At its core, this discussion is about purpose and relevance. It isn’t about price points, right? It isn’t about stock availability or shopping experiences. Not in this instance. Remember: Why are people leaving? Because they don’t care anymore. Why don’t they care anymore? Because a) we aren’t giving them a reason to, and b) other companies are. The answer then, must lie somewhere in the orbit of “how do we make them care again?”

The answer, by the way, won’t be found in trying to be more like Facebook or more like Instagram or more like Snapchat either. (That would be bringing us back to features, and as we now know, it isn’t about the features, stupid. Right? Right.)

As with our earlier exercise, getting past the heart-pumping panic and the momentary lack of clarity boils down to knowing what to do to get through the problem. Here again, there is method and discipline. You are going to have to use your brain and get creative, but that comes later. For this part, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel or take stabs at the problem in the dark. Stick to the method.

The question is one of purpose or relevance? Start there. Here are your two fundamental questions. Until you can answer them, you’re screwed, so figure it out.

Why does Twitter exist?

Why does Twitter matter?

(Feel free to replace Twitter with any company.)

Note that we are talking about actual purpose and relevance here, not mantras and mission statements. Why is your company here? What purpose does it serve? (If you can’t answer that, how do you expect your customers and users to know?)

Once you’ve solved that piece of the puzzle, here is the next set of questions:

What problem does (or could) Twitter solve?

How does (or could) Twitter solve it better or more elegantly than other companies?

How does Twitter make (or could make) itself indispensable to its users?

If you can answer those three questions, you can take it from there. You won’t be out of the ditch quite yet, but you’ll know how to get out of it, and where to go once you are.

That’s the process. That’s how you begin to fix Twitter (and any company struggling with the same kind of problem). Not super complicated, and it doesn’t stop there, but unless you have someone in the room who knows how to do this (and remembers to) it’s easy to end up in the weeds. I have seen it happen hundreds of times, and it’s never fun to watch a great company with a lot of potential struggle and shrink while the very opportunities and solutions they need to solve their problems are right there in front of them. It’s tragic and unnecessary, and it sucks. So if this post can help you or someone you know right their ship, whether it’s at Twitter or anywhere, then I’ve done my job.

For now though, here’s me hoping that the folks at Twitter figure it out before too long.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/how-to-fix-twitter-and-not-just-twitter/feed/48796How Toxic Leadership May Be Killing Your Business (And Your Career)http://olivierblanchard.net/how-toxic-leadership-may-be-killing-your-business-and-your-career/
http://olivierblanchard.net/how-toxic-leadership-may-be-killing-your-business-and-your-career/#commentsThu, 31 Dec 2015 19:38:32 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8774Continue Reading →]]>I have been wondering for some time now why businesses that look great on paper, businesses that are well positioned to continue to thrive for the foreseeable future, fail.

Before I go on, understand that I don’t have any data to present. There’s no white paper coming. I haven’t spent the last twenty years methodically studying this problem to identify a statistically relevant matrix of causes. All I have to go on is observation. One hundred percent of my hunch (and that’s all it is: a hunch) is anecdotal. I can’t prove any of it. I can’t defend it empirically. I haven’t even pored through papers in relevant fields like psychology and sociology. All I can do is share what I’ve seen pretty consistently, and suggest that maybe, just maybe, there is something to it.

My observations (and conclusions) aren’t limited to companies, by the way. They also apply to military units and police departments, to classrooms, to social clubs, to families… basically any self-organized group of people.

Again, the question is this: what makes organizations fail?

More to the point, is it possible that the long list of likely causes for failure (inability to adapt to change, risk aversion, an entrenched mentality, cultural bubbles, operational dysfunction, resistance, etc.), is actually a list of symptoms rather than a list of causes? Is it possible that all of these problems, these weaknesses, aren’t causes at all, but rather manifestations of something more insidious?

When I first started thinking about this article some months ago, I thought I was going to talk about resistance. I will, at some point, because it’s a super important piece of the puzzle even outside of this particular discussion, but that isn’t what this article needs to be about. Resistance is generally a separate problem. It can be triggered by today’s topic, and it can certainly be exacerbated by it, but it isn’t the root cause of organizational dysfunction or of the systemic cancer-like cause of failure that I see over and over and over again, making once healthy companies increasingly unhealthy.

What we need to talk about today is toxicity. More specifically, toxic people.

From Toxic Relatives to Toxic CEOs:

Again: Why do once healthy, thriving organizations fail? More often than not, if you can trace the cause straight on up (or down), it will come down to people. These people will, like all of us, have positive and negative attributes. They will be better at some things than others. Ideally, they will have some degree of competence and skill when it comes to how well they fit in their role, whether it is a strategic role or a tactical role. But one thing that I keep running into on a consistent basis when I follow systemic failures that threaten and weaken, and essentially poison the well at companies, is toxic people. Top to bottom.

What I am also noticing is that toxic people infect their surroundings with their toxicity. It doesn’t matter if said toxicity is overt aggression (raging assholes, tyrants, bigots, etc.) or more passive forms of aggression (devious, underhanded, easily threatened, self-serving people wracked with insecurities they aren’t dealing with properly).

The impact on an individual’s toxicity on himself or herself is problematic enough, but put a toxic person in a room with several other people for any length of time, and that impact will spread to everyone in that room. Symptoms of this impact are apprehension, discord, stress, negativity… you name it. Whether the group is a family getting together for the holidays or a large organization, the impact is always the same. Toxic people infect their surroundings with their poison.

Toxic teachers. Toxic police officers. Toxic coworkers. Toxic bosses. Toxic pundits. Toxic neighbors. Toxic customer service representatives. Toxic political candidates. Toxic parents. Toxic C-suite executives. Toxic CEOs. It’s all the same mechanism: Toxicity is contagious. Its effective range varies, but the effect is generally proportional regardless of the group’s size. Even if not everyone has direct contact with a toxic person, everyone is ultimately affected. It’s a sort of cultural domino effect (more so than a butterfly effect). Degrees of separation help explain and track the effects of one person’s toxicity on a group they interact with directly and indirectly.

In the absolute worst cases, the ones that usually end badly for the organizations that find themselves afflicted with this, the toxic individual (or individuals, plural) are in charge. They aren’t just middle managers who like to make their staff’s lives miserable because they can. They aren’t just coworkers who put everyone in a bad mood on a daily basis. They are the decision-makers, the leaders, the very people whose energy, enthusiasm and vision are the lifeblood of their orgs.

Let’s look at two really common manifestations of toxic CEOs that I routinely run into: The Arrested Development Ego Monster, and the Grasping-At-Straws Neurotic Monster.

Arrested Development Ego Monsters:

Many years ago, I spent the better part of a year watching the daily whirlwind of complete and near-catastrophic nonsense caused by a CEO whose insecurities and general resentment of other people had obviously been festering inside him since childhood. The result: 1) Tantrums. Lots of tantrums. 2) Focusing on vanity projects at the expense of profitable projects. 3) Rejection of anything that looked or felt like change (yes, including innovation). This wasn’t just a case of arrested development. That can actually be managed. The guy was so toxic that no one, not even his most senior advisers, dared to come to him with any new ideas or data or strategic insights that were actually vital to the company’s continued success. 4) A pathological inability (or reluctance) to lead or take responsibility for anything. Credit, yes. Responsibility, no.

This was an extreme case, but in recent years, I have run into similarly afflicted business leaders – so wracked with personal dysfunction that they lashed out, sometimes violently, at any and all suggestion of necessary change or course correction, or innovation. The reason? My best guess is that admitting that change is necessary is admitting that their organization, under their leadership, is no longer good enough to be competitive. Translated through their dysfunctional brain filter, the suggestion that their org needs to change means that they need to change. The implied deficiency of their organization therefore becomes a suggestion that they themselves are deficient. The result: Any suggestion of necessary change is taken as personal criticism, and their ego simply cannot handle it. They lash out at this perceived threat to protect themselves and their internal status quo.

The effect on the org: 1) A systematic resistance to change. 2) A hostile and toxic environment around the boss, especially when he or she isn’t having a good day. 3) A general fear of being assigned any kind of forward looking project, knowing it will ultimately end up with a) a rejection of whatever the project produces, no matter how good, and b) someone getting sacked for having “failed” even if they didn’t.

Not exactly the kind of business environment that results in initiative, innovation, market adaptation, or long term relevance. (Or healthy morale, for that matter.)

Grasping-at-straws Neurotic Monsters:

Another type of dysfunction I run into on a fairly consistent basis is the CEO who, again, to mask an overflowing crater of insecurities, keeps coming up with random ideas that will allegedly fix (mask) all of his or her company’s problems. It’s kind of a digging a hole to fill up another hole mechanism, in which holes keep getting dug and filled, but nothing of substance ever gets built. It isn’t busy for the sake of busy, necessarily, but it does translate into that somewhat, as each idea trickles down the org chart, and project teams just do what they’re told if they want to keep their jobs.

In this scenario, whatever you were working on for the last few months, which was until this morning the year’s big game-changing initiative is suddenly no longer relevant. There’s a brand new project now, and it’s genius, and everyone needs to get started on it immediately.

As with arrested development ego monsters, there is no dissuading this type of CEO from this new endeavor. Anyone who has worked in the org for longer than six months knows the drill: Stop what you were doing and start working on the new thing. Don’t raise your hand, don’t ask questions, don’t point out the obvious flaws.

Best case scenario, you can complete the project before the next big idea comes along. Worst case scenario, you won’t get to finish that one either. Something else will come along before you can. In really bad cases (and they are more common than they ought to be), project managers and team leads will get sacked for not having completed the projects they were originally assigned to, even though the decision to put these projects on hold came from the CEO. I’ve seen that happen a lot, and it has to be one of the most absurd and toxic side-effects of this type of dysfunction that I can think of.

To add insult to injury, even when these rapid-fire projects do come to fruition quickly enough to avoid being put on hold forever, the idea behind them was so poorly fleshed out to begin with that it ends up being a spectacular flop.

Some typical causes of programs like this failing right out of the gate: No pre-op market research to determine if new the service or product is even viable, no real testing during the development process, no pre-launch marketing or sales, no clear alignment with the company’s strategic objectives, and even lousy timing. (Example: I have watched companies release new business products with virtually no warning or lead-up, and in the middle of major holidays when no one is paying attention. Still, the CEO’s expectation was that the launch would magically be successful even though it clearly couldn’t be. To make matters worse, I have seen this happen mere weeks from major conferences or trade shows where such a launch might have actually generated some measure of success. This type of erratic behavior seems inexplicable, but it isn’t that difficult to understand once you know what causes it.)

The short of it: 1) Insecurities driving a reflex of overcompensation. 2) That overcompensation manifesting itself as a vacuous and ultimately doomed windmill of harebrained ideas. 3) By the very nature of the ideas’ unrealistic expectations and planning, the ideas are doomed to fail. 4) That failure is blamed (projected) onto subordinates. 5) Toxicity spreads across the org as ineffective leadership (and being set up to fail again and again) kills morale and feeds a festering boil of unnecessary stress, further exacerbating mid-level dysfunction, and on and on and on.

Two main reasons drive this mechanism: The first is deflection: The same inability to take responsibility for mistakes and a lack of leadership that we see with the Arrested Development Monster. Failure can’t be hidden forever, so someone else has to be responsible for it. The narrative plays out like this: “I keep coming up with great ideas, and you guys keep failing to execute on them. This is all your fault.” Second: Launching projects that are doomed to fail from the start may, in some cases, be a subconscious exercise in self-sabotage, but that’s a little more complicated.

What you will find is that the types of individuals behind this kind of MO tend to thrive on useless and constant drama. For instance, they love to talk about how complicated their lives are, and how much work they get done in spite of all of the chaos that conspires to leave them in utter ruin on a daily basis. The first five minutes of any conversation with them will be a recap of all of the personal catastrophes they have miraculously managed overcome since you last spoke with them, and how much they still have to overcome before their 89-hour workday is finally done. They are the heroes of their own conflated dysfunctions, survivors of a million self-inflicted dramas, and they want you to know, every time you interact with them, just how impossibly busy, brave, and driven they are.

Anyway, look at any company with short tenures and/or high employee turnover rates, and you can be pretty sure that you are dealing with one or more of these two types of individuals somewhere near or at the top of the org chart.

Why is this important?

I am not writing about this to get nods and likes. Anyone who has worked long enough, whether as an employee, a contractor or a consultant, has bumped into at least one company being run like this, and in some way sensed that the dysfunction they witnessed was caused by poor leadership somewhere along the org chart. In a way, you already know this stuff, even if you haven’t broken it down to quite this degree. I am writing this as a warning. Why? Because here’s the deal – here’s the reality of what this means to you today, tomorrow, next week and next year: That kind of dysfunction is caused by toxic people who, by their very natures, cannot and willnot change. Ever. Things around these people will never improve, and you need to accept that.

I mean it. You need to accept that.

This article is not an intro to twelve step program to detox your org or fix your boss. I am not telling you any of this to help you better survive in toxic business environments. This is me helping you identify and understand toxic leadership so that, once you have realized that you are in its presence, you can run.

That’s right: run. If you work for someone like this, whether they are your direct superior or a CEO twenty layers removed, run for your fucking lives.

I am not saying that you should quit your job today. Stay and learn. Build relationships. Hone your skills. Work on the coolest projects you can while you’re there. Pad your resume. But start looking for your next gig now. Today. Don’t wait until next week, or next quarter, or when things start turning sour, which they will. Don’t wait until the hatchet starts moving in your direction either. Start preparing your exit immediately. There isn’t going to be a rebound. Business isn’t going to get better. Morale will never improve. As long as you are there, you won’t ever do the work that you really should be doing and want to be doing. Not there. The arrested development that your CEO or boss is suffering from is pulling you into its orbit and feeding off your energy. The longer you stay, the harder it will be to leave, and the more drained you will be when you finally walk out the door. At the first opportunity, get the fuck out. Escape that professional trap.

This is the best (and probably the only) career advice I will ever give you.

But… but…

No. There is no but.

The sad reality of this whole discussion is that you cannot fix toxic people. Don’t even try. It’s easier to cure a heroin addict of his addiction than to turn a toxic person around. Even if you happen to be their shrink, and they want to turn a new leaf, good luck with that. You are looking at years of therapy that will lead nowhere because all they are giving you is lip service. They don’t really want to change. They’re terrified of change. Everything they do and say about wanting to fix their dysfunction is a lie. The thing is, you aren’t your CEO’s shrink. You’re just an employee, or a contractor, or a consultant. On a long enough timeline (and it won’t be that long, trust me) all you will ever be in that equation is collateral damage.

Because you can’t fix toxic people, you also can’t fix the organizations they poison by being there. I don’t care how successful that company used to be or still could be. I don’t care if it is sitting on $300B in cash. It doesn’t matter. (Though chances are that it isn’t.) I don’t care if you’re the best and most famous leadership consultant in the world or the most innovative exec in your industry, you cannot fix this. There is nothing you can do about it. As long as these people are there, things will not improve. Not even a little bit. If they ever seem to, brace yourselves because the backslide will be swift: One step forward, two steps back. You probably know what I am talking about. You’ve been there. You may even be there right now.

The only cure is to remove them, and replace them with non-toxic people. That’s it. It’s the only remedy. If you sit on a board and you have that kind of power over a toxic CEO, do that. If not, you’re SOL.

I wish I had better news for you, a better solution to this problem, but I don’t. All I can do is help you make a smart decision – sooner rather than later – and hopefully save you a lot of useless grief and stress and bullshit. Life is too short, and career opportunities are too few to waste your time working for the wrong people especially when they are dragging everything and everyone they touch down into their forever poisonous orbit.

At the first hint of what I described above, start working on your exit. Don’t wait. It may not seem like it now, but you’ll thank me someday.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/how-toxic-leadership-may-be-killing-your-business-and-your-career/feed/38774Doing Business In The Age of Experience – Part 3http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-3/
http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-3/#respondTue, 24 Nov 2015 21:16:34 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8742Continue Reading →]]>In Part 1 of our Age of Experience series, we talked about the evolution from product design to experience design. In Part 2, we looked at some specific applications of this shift: how innovative companies are looking past product design as the end game, and instead leveraging product design as a platform for user experiences. Today, I want to close things out by talking about what lies ahead (just over the horizon). We’ll keep circling back to this every few months, but let’s take a quick inventory of some of what I see already.

What’s next for the Internet of Things?

I’ve never liked the term “Internet of Things.” It’s awkward. It’s clunky. It’s also short-sighted. On the semantic side, a more elegant way of describing this technological phase in our collective evolution might be “connected devices” for the product category, or “connected device integration” for the actual phenomenon. Anyway, Internet of Things it is, so let’s go with that. IoT. One of the things I heard over and over again at the 3DExperience Forum was a variation on the theme that moved away from “things” or objects, and focused instead on experiences. Everyone there had already moved on from the Internet of Things to the Internet of Experiences. This isn’t just a semantic hat trick. The relevance to our conversation is that the shift from things to experiences telegraphs the evolution of an evolving mindset. It may seem trivial, but it signals a pretty huge shift, considering the size of the market for connected devices and the extent to which smart, connected tech will be increasingly woven into every aspect of our lives in the future.

Don’t worry, I am not going to turn into a futurist. That isn’t what I do. But being plugged into the heart of tech industry and specifically into hubs of innovation like Dassault Systemes, I get to see a) tech capabilities that don’t really get a lot of attention on Facebook and Twitter (especially compared to app-style startups), b) how all the tech/culture/market pieces fit, and c) how the product, trend and infrastructure trajectories behave. The combination of my background and the kind of access I enjoy sometimes puts me in a unique position to help connect the dots not just for myself and clients, but for you guys as well, which is why we are talking about this right now.

Anyway, the point is that the Internet of Things is just a means to an end. What makes the IoT powerful and valuable is that it helps us customize our environments, which is something that humans are deeply receptive to. From the moment our ancestors started decorating caves, we have been experimenting with new ways of controlling our environment, which is to say how we shape and experience the world around us. Everything we do ultimately results in an experience: The little bits and pieces of world that we build for ourselves – at home, at work, in transit, while we shop, while we play, while we rest, while we travel, while we eat and drink – are designed to create and evoke experiences. Cuisine is a platform for experiences. So is music. So are literature and theater and sport. Couches, perfume, device ergonomics and connected devices play directly into this. The IoT is simply the most recent phase in a journey that started a very long time ago.

So the question then, is what’s next? What are the next series of dots we’ll be connecting in the next few decades?

Enchanted Objects: Enchanted Experiences.

The 10,000ft view is pretty simple: 1) smart, connected devices will continue to their embedding in the very fabric of our daily lives, and 2) this increased degree of tech integration means that the way industries think about innovation will evolve accordingly.

On a more concrete level, this means that “wearables” will increasingly become more integrated into everyday objects. A few examples: We are already seeing smart apparel (from athletic clothing to performance footwear) turn up for athletes, emergency first responders and the military. Right now, the tech is limited to basic monitoring and measurement (like heart rate and body temperature), but we will soon start to see diagnostic capabilities like blood pressure, stress and blood glucose added to the mix. Bluetooth-connected apparel and smart fabrics will definitely find mainstream adoption once the category starts to mature.

It also means that everyday objects will a) become smarter, and b) play a part in creating entirely new types of experiences for us. For a deeper dive into what I am talking about, I recommend reading David Rose’s Enchanted Objects. David gave an incredible keynote at the Boston 3DExperience Forum, in which he talked about the inevitability of social robots (for better and for worse), the many categories of smart, enchanted objects, and how the technology that now makes such things possible isn’t going away anytime soon. We could have a fascinating conversation, for example, about fairy tale “enchanted objects” (like the talking mirror in Snow White) now being within our grasp. We have reached a point in our technological evolution that makes “magical” objects possible, at least in the sense that a child, or a time traveler from the Middle Ages, would be incapable of grasping the difference between magic and technology. I mean… talking invisible virtual assistants that follow you from room to room? Being able to turn any surface into a touchscreen? A house that reads your moods and anticipates your needs? Appliances that plan your meals for you?

On the more complex end of the spectrum, here is a retail mirror that allows you to see what a garment (or a complete outfit) would look like on you:

On the simpler and more utilitarian end of the spectrum, here is an Rx container that reminds you to take your pills:

As simple as it is, note its power: Below are graphs showing the difference between people using a normal pill box vs. a smart pill box. The pink dots are instances in which someone forgot (or chose not) to take their medicine. The first image is the control group (just using standard Rx containers). The second image shows the impact of using the smart container.

Cool but cost-prohibitive, right? Not anymore. 1) The overall cost to society of millions of people not taking their meds properly is significantly greater than the cost of the device. 2) The sensors and tech that go into a pill box to make it smart now only costs about $1-$5 per unit. That’s all.

Also, will social robots become our children’s babysitters and companions? Will they (and smart homes) help solve loneliness in the elderly and help them live fuller lives? Perhaps.

I had an opportunity to sit down with David in a little roundtable event to talk about this. We talked about applications in agriculture (microbiome sensing, for instance), affecting computing (relating to our emotional states), medical environments (replacing stress and uncertainty with soothing, pleasant experiences, particularly when dealing with very young patients), intelligent homes (imagine Siri-like A.I. embedded into every room and appliance in your home), and transportation (from talking, self-driving cars to adaptive environments in trains and airplanes). We’re already seeing the first iterations of this technological integration. A decade ago, Microsoft’s House of the Future in Redmond, WA already presaged this (albeit with RFID technology driving it all), but we are seeing it actually taking shape all around us now, thanks to apps, broadband data networks, bluetooth connectivity, sensor technology, and the advent of both cloud services and A.I. If the confluence of these technologies forms the foundation of the new world we are building for ourselves, our need to improve our environments and experiences is the driving force behind it.

What about self-driving cars and objects as a service?

I also had a chance to sit down with Dassault Systemes’ VP of Transportation and Mobility Industry, Olivier Sappin. We talked at length about the inevitability of self-driving cars, how self-driving cars will impact urban design and planning (See the video I posted in Part 2 for more insight into urban planning innovation), and the impact that millennials are already having on sharing vs. owning cars, both in regards to (again) urban planning, and how car makers will navigate the market shift from ownership to… hybrid models of ownership, co-ownership, rental, ride-sharing, etc. (The future of ownership question was a very big topic of conversation, which was later augmented by Jeremiah Owyang’s fantastic keynote on Crowd as a business model.) A few insights I can share with you without getting any more long-winded than I already am:

Self-driving cars will, at least for a long time, be hybrid driver/driverless systems. Why? Because it is likely that until all streets and roads are well adapted to accommodate self-driving cars, some areas will be designated as self-driving capable while others won’t. You may even see the creation of special lanes for self-driving cars, both in cities and on highways. How these zones will interface with in-vehicle autopilots remains to be seen, but expect in-vehicle prompts at the point of transition between zones to be part of the self-driving car experience for some time. (Cities with clean grids – like NYC – will probably see faster integration than cities with messy grids – like Paris – for instance, where a self-driving car would be… impractical right now.) So adoption rates for self-driving cars will have at least as much to do with infrastructure readiness as with consumer demand.

Cities will most likely lead the charge in regards to experimental car ownership models. Olivier smirked when he told me to pay attention to what Tokyo is working on in preparation of the 2020 Olympics. The future of urban car-sharing may very well be showcased there. (Always trust the smirks.)

We also had a philosophical discussion about whether or not self-driving car should be programmed to choose the least deadly option in an A/B scenario in which a serious accident is inevitable. (The question was posed recently in this article: should self-driving cars be programmed to kill?) Olivier’s answer was unequivocal: No. Self-driving cars should not be programmed to kill. Just one instance of a self-driving car resulting in a pedestrian fatality would put the entire self-driving car concept into question, and nobody wants that. He stressed that car makers, regulators and infrastructure designers must work together to create safeguards that prevent self-driving cars from essentially breaking Asimov’s First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. (Olivier didn’t actually invoke Asimov, I did, but that’s what we are talking about. What’s fascinating to me is that we are actually having these conversations now. This isn’t science fiction anymore, and that’s pretty cool.)

This further emphasizes the need to look beyond simple product design, by the way. Every connected object being connected to something, product design is by default also system design now, and system design is by default ultimately experience design. Even in regards to safety features and integration into urban systems and transportation grids, design must take into consideration not only public safety but public trust. (Without first establishing public trust for potentially dangerous inventions, mass adoption is impossible.)

We also talked about the need for continued R&D investments regarding energy grids, as the shift to electric vehicles, especially in cities, may be a friction point for cities whose electric grids are already at capacity.

As luck would have it, Dassault Systemes can help with every single point of engineering, design and innovation he and I discussed, and yes, Olivier smirked again when the discussion naturally circled back to that. The cars, the roads, the cities, the driver experiences, the pedestrian safety, the power grids… it all falls perfectly into their wheelhouse.

By the way, I haven’t forgotten my own semi-accidental use of “objects as a service” (OAAS) in this section’s title. Not a lot of Google activity on that, so I’ll just coin it here. If it ever gets any kind of traction (like Software as a service/SAAS), make your checks payable to you-know-who.

Speaking of the OAAS model, I need to devote at least one whole post to Jeremiah’s presentation. Until I do, here are a couple of photos from his keynote (First and last slides):

To recap:

I don’t want this to turn into a massive white paper, so let’s do a quick recap of the meatiest points covered and not covered in this three-part series:

If you haven’t already, change your organization’s thinking from product design to experience design: Products drive experiences, and the value of a product lies in the quality of the experience it creates or provides.

Technology is helping transform normal, every day objects into what David Rose calls “enchanted objects.”

The enchantment factor in these objects creates amazing experiences for their users, which is the basis of their value.

Self-organizing communities are changing the way information flows in your markets. Innovate accordingly.

Virtualization can considerably accelerate innovation, R&D, and product prototyping (not just in reference to parts but entire systems).

Virtualization also replaces the need for cost-intensive testing. (With tech that can mimic the atomic and molecular properties of any material, including living tissue, everything from testing the impact of a drug on a human being to crash-testing Mars delivery vehicles can be done virtually now.) I mention this because when it comes to the type of innovation we have been discussing this past week, this is the stuff that makes it all possible. (And the reason why the kind of innovation we are talking about is happening in a matter of months rather than decades.)

Companies that are innovating towards experiences rather than just objects are already finding themselves at a distinct advantage.

Companies that are leveraging the rights tools are able to innovate better, faster, and at a much lower cost than companies that are not.

Partnerships matter more than ever. This applies to small startups as much as global conglomerates.

One of the things I walked away with after this year’s 3DExperience Forum is that approaching any innovation ecosystem from an experience design angle guarantees both purpose and value in every kind of design project. It essentially helps answer the most important question every product manager, designer and inventor should start and end with: Why?

On a more personal note, beyond the excitement I get as both a tech geek and a business strategy nerd, what events like this do for me is kind of fill me with hope. I know it sounds corny, but it’s easy to get bogged down by the news sometimes – war, racism, pettiness, ugly politics… Then you get to peek behind the curtain at the amazing things people are building, at the mind-boggling real-world technical capabilities that are available today (stuff that would seem like science fiction to the average person), to the passion and genius that drive it all, and you get the sense that the world is moving in the right direction after all. We are going to Mars. We are going to cure cancer, and ween ourselves off fossil fuels, and clean up the oceans, and live in homes and cities that will make the future of the Jetsons seem dull: Social robots, intelligent objects, self-driving cars, self-healing energy grids, lifestyle-integrated medicine, talking homes, replacement organs, environmentally-friendly cities… it’s all just over the horizon. We’re already seeing the start of it, and that’s exciting, not only because it’s “cool,” but because of what it means for us as a species, because of the caliber of people working together on building a better world, and because no matter what, there is always an army of people out there working on building a better world for everyone. Too bad we don’t get to see much of that on the news but if, from time to time, I can shine a tiny bit of light on that world here, I’ve done my part. (And guess what: if you want to be part of that world, you can be. Good, smart, passionate people are always welcome.)

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-3/feed/08742Doing business in the age of experience – Part 2http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-2/
http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-2/#respondFri, 20 Nov 2015 20:08:08 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8727Continue Reading →]]>In Part 1, we started talking about the innovation and design continuum, and the evolution of design thinking. More specifically, we started touching on the evolution of design from designing objects to designing experiences. Today, I want to dive a little bit deeper into that, because it’s a lot more important than it might initially seem.

First, this isn’t some silly academic theory. Experience design is not new, and it’s no joke. The most obvious example of a company designing experiences via its products (as opposed to just designing slick products), is Apple. It’s success in the hand-held industry can’t be attributed to slick product design alone. Yes, the phones and tablets look and feel super nice in a minimalist way, but the real magic is in the experiences they drive: They delight. They enchant. They connect. They enable. They empower. Even the app store is easy to work with. Integration with apps and other Apple devices is clean and mostly bug-free. Apple is in essence not just a tech company but an experience company.

One might say the same about most successful consumer brands today: Nike, Starbucks, BMW, Chanel, Virgin Airlines, GoPro, the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas, and so on. The products themselves are the anchors at the heart of their brand ecosystems, but the experiences they create are where their success – the real magic, if you will – really lives. Once you see and understand it, the importance of looking past product design and evolving into experience design becomes clear.

Consider, for instance, a company that hasn’t yet fully grasped this. This company is focusing on product design but not taking into account experience design: So now we have a perfectly designed passenger jet. Beautiful lines, amazing fuel efficiency, super smooth tarmac to air transitions, gorgeous seats, clever little tablets, HD touchscreens for everyone, bathrooms with 17% more space… in terms of commercial jet design, it doesn’t get much better than that, at least on paper. Now fast-forward 2 years, and 200 aircraft just like it are now part of an airline’s fleet. Let’s call that airline Clutch Airlines. Clutch Airlines is tightening their belt, so their staff is overworked and underpaid, and they often take out their frustrations on passengers. The cleaning of the aircraft between flights isn’t what it could be. The content available to passengers on the HD touchscreens is not very good, and most of it sits behind a paywall. Its flights tend to depart and arrive an hour late on a pretty regular basis. You get the idea: Even the most well designed aircraft can’t make up for lousy experiences (or even just boring ones). Thinking beyond devices, products and services is vital to their success.

Another way to think about it is that he disconnect between product design and experience design has to be bridged, or all that hard design and engineering work won’t ever yield the results they should.

Now… I used Apple earlier because it is a universal example of what can be done with the right understanding of experience design in today’s consumer tech world, but Apple is far from the only company doing this right. Long time rival Microsoft has been doing some amazing work as well, particularly with its multipurpose Surface product line. Years ago, when I was working with them in the channel, Surface was an interactive table concept. Genius stuff for its time. So much so that a Surface-like device was used by Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. (The scene in their secret train car.) Surface’s size and price point would have made it difficult to scale as a consumer product, so the Surface branding was moved to its more retail-friendly laptop tablet hybrid project we now all know (and are curious about). The concept of a laptop/tablet do-it-all computer isn’t new, but what Microsoft did was clever: they didn’t just set out to solve engineering problems. They didn’t just set out to work on specs and product design. They started looking at ways to create seamless analog-to-digital experiences. For instance, they realized that typical tablet dimensions didn’t match the dimensions of pen and paper notepads that people still enjoy using. They also looked at ways of creating a paper and pen interface that would feel natural to note-takers (something many other tech companies have attempted in the past and not quite managed to get right). These features became part of the new Surface Pro’s design. The detachable keyboard’s improved ergonomics and tactile feedback; the slick docking mechanism; the seamless, fluid, do-what-you-want-and-it-will-work construction, the perfectly integrated OS… every single detail was driven not solely by performance and specs, but by experience design.

The question wasn’t simply “how do we build a better version of the same product, it was how do we we design the best and most delightful possible experiences for the user? If this were a discussion about lovebrands and the need to find ways of making your customers love you, not just like you, I could stop here. In the context of this series though, we also have to look at the simple utility of delighting your customers and users, not just satisfying their needs. Watch this video to gain some insight into what I am talking about:

Customer satisfaction isn’t enough anymore. (Not that it ever really was.) Customer delight, customer enchantment, are the new benchmarks of success. Every company should design for that. It doesn’t matter if you are designing devices, cars, living spaces, furniture, hospitals, trains, medical diagnostic machines, athletic apparel, hotels, cameras, apps, cookware, and even vehicle-sharing grids. Product designers and city planners alike have to start thinking this way, and it was good to be reminded of the many ways that an increasing number of them are at Dassault Systemes’ 3DExperience Forum. Let me share a few examples:

This is how virtualization and experience design are already helping city planners design the smart cities of tomorrow (creating delightful urban dwelling experiences around the clock):

This is how they are being applied to the future of retail (creating enchanting shopping experiences):

This is how they are being applied to transitioning from delivering services to developing customer experiences, even in not super obvious industries (this video is pretty long but worth watching. Lots of case studies in it):

This is how they are being applied to empowered, personalized healthcare management (creating safer and increasingly friction-free quality-of-life improvements to common, sometimes grave, medical problems):

In Part 3, I will dig into the notion of enchanted objects (and enchanted environments), and how, from self-driving cars to intelligent devices, our future is already being shaped by experience design. For now though, give some thought to the difference between product design and experience design in your own organization (or your clients’). Also give some thought to the difference between product management and experience management: Are you focusing on both? Is your operational thinking adapting to these new paradigms yet? Are you able to articulate and implement this in your own work environment?

Food for thought. I hope this is giving you some insight into what you should be thinking about and where to go from there.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-2/feed/08727Doing Business In The Age Of Experience – Part 1http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-1/
http://olivierblanchard.net/doing-business-in-the-age-of-experience-part-1/#respondThu, 19 Nov 2015 20:54:13 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8708Continue Reading →]]>Going into this year’s Dassault Systemes3DExperience Forum in Boston, I thought I was going to hear about new engineering and design innovation, and about new virtualization tools and capabilities open to engineers and surgeons and marketers and designers. Given that Dassault Systemes is doing groundbreaking work in those areas, that seemed like a reasonable list of topics that would be covered in detail at the event. (They were definitely big items on the schedule of last year’s event.)

In a way, I wasn’t wrong, but tools and capabilities aren’t really what I came away with this time around. Not to minimize the importance of the tools I saw, which are mind-boggling both in their seemingly limitless capabilities and agile range of use, but this time, the aspect of the event that struck me was the importance of design and innovation being driven by vision. That is what gives these tools both purpose and power.

Don’t get me wrong: Process, tools and execution are what ultimately make things possible. They’re the brick and mortar, the trowel and the plumb line, the blueprint and the schedule, the wheels on the trucks and the hard hats on the workers’ heads. But without the unifying vision bringing it all together and giving it all purpose, processes and tools are little more than disconnected bits and pieces of potential waiting to be brought together.

The easiest way to visualize what I am talking about (no virtualization needed), is to conjure up an image of one of Leonardo Da Vinci’s mechanical drawings. That’s where the genius reveals itself: not in the skills and artisanship that come later (problem-solving is fun), but in the ability to articulate the idea itself. That is what we’re talking about here, only with a much bigger sandbox. What I was reminded of at this year’s 3DExperience Forum was that the real genius of innovation lies in developing the right ideas and articulating them. That’s where the real power is. That’s what drives innovation and progress.

Before the folks at Dassault Systemes even get into the business of helping the world’s most brilliant minds innovate towards (and beyond) their vision, they first help them lay out the foundation for that process by providing tools that help them nail down the ideation and vision, and even push the envelope as far as it will stretch. Here’s a link to all of the products they offer (it would take me far too long to get into it here). That’s because ideas are about more than engineering and design, and if you don’t nail down the idea properly first, you’re missing the most important element of your world-changing project. No matter how well-built it is on the tech side, its impact may not be what you might have hoped. The right mindset and approach to design, along with the right partners, can make all the difference: Ideas first, execution second.

In Parts 2 and 3 of this series, we will talk about the shift from the internet of things (#IoT) to the internet of experience (#IoE), and what that means in terms of concrete innovation like self-driving cars, enchanted objects and artificial organs. We will also talk about self-organizing movements (Crowd Companies models), and other pretty exciting new directions for science, tech, medicine, urban design and our daily lives. Going to events like this is amazing, not because of the tools themselves, but because of all of the amazing ways they help shape and transform the world in the years ahead.

Today though, I just want to introduce the concept of Experience Design and Experience Thinking, as a framework for innovation. What we are talking about is a mindset, a focus, an understanding that design has to address more than just devices and objects. Design ultimately has to address the experiences that these devices and objects will create.

Below is a photo of the natural evolution of design thinking in most companies between 2000 and 2010, as explained by Dassault Systemes’ very own Monica Menghini (EVP and Chief Strategy Officer). As a footnote, Apple’s model may have helped mainstream this evolution, but consumer products are not driving this on their own. The same evolution can be found in urban design, architectural design, healthcare, manufacturing, space exploration, education, retail, and so on. It has become a universal and vertical-agnostic phenomenon. Companies that have not yet adopted this model are struggling to keep up while those that have are more competitive than ever. There is a universal methodology and mindset here that can be applied to every industry and every company, no matter how big or small.

Below is a simple map of what we are talking about in terms of experience thinking (and experience design). Similar thought process to what you might already know as UX, but applied to every internal/external touchpoint and every process, not just the enduser experience.

What’s important to understand is that where there’s a model, there’s a system, and where there’s a system, there’s architecture. None of this happens by accident. It happens by design. That design has to be ideated, developed, mapped out, built, tested, retested, deployed, and continuously improved upon. That requires vision, collaboration, organization, the right toolsets, the right business and cultural ecosystems, and so on. What I rediscovered at 3DExperience Forum was how all of these pieces can be made to fit together seamlessly to not only make the ideation-to-execution process seem seamless, but in a way that injects that process with unprecedented velocity (faster prototyping through advanced virtualization) and at a fraction of the cost that similar projects would have been weighed down by only a few years ago. (Virtualization makes prototyping and testing in completely realistic digital environments much more cost-effective than having to build clunky and expensive physical prototypes, even the 3D-printed ones.) We’ll talk more about that too, but for now, I want you to focus on what Experience Thinking is, and how indispensable it is to developing a complete strategy (and vision) for your ideas and projects. Why? Because everything you and I design ultimately serves to create either a positive or a negative experience somewhere down the line.

At its core: Positive experiences win. Negative experiences don’t. Your company’s success is 100% connected to your ability to create the former rather than the latter, and more so now than ever before.

Stay tuned for Part 2. We’ll dive a little deeper into what all of this means, and how it is already being applied to world-changing innovation, some of which will blow your mind. Hopefully, this discussion will not only inspire you to improve your own processes but also help you get better at fostering groundbreaking innovation within your org and for the market(s) you serve.

Until we meet again, I recommend that you click here and scroll down to the “Portfolio of Industry Solution Experiences” section (almost all the way down). Really cool stuff, and a great little primer if you aren’t familiar with some of what is actually possible already. (Some of it will seem like sci-fi, which… is one of the things that I find so cool about all of this. We really are living in exciting times.) There’s also a link to the event’s livestream.

If you don’t know who I am, I am a French expat living in the US. I’ve been here since 1994, and before that, I studied here for 4 years before going back to France and serving in the military there. My wife is American. My kids are American. My dogs are American. I think one of our parrots might be Brazilian, but maybe first generation American. It’s hard to tell with eggs. They can be shipped or whatever. Anyway, my house is American, my taxes are American… I have pretty much assimilated to American ways. I have lived here for over half of my life.

Now… When I say that I am French, that’s not entirely true. I am more than just French, I am a Parisian. That’s like being a New Yorker: You’re American, but you’re also a New Yorker. It’s like a dual-nationality, in a way. I was born and raised in Paris. That city is my heart, my home. I’ve built my life here, but when people ask me where I am from, I say Paris. Always have, always will. I am telling you this so you will understand where I am coming from in regards to terrorism, especially in the last few days.

As you all know, last week, Daesh-inspired terrorists (you guys call them ISIS) launched a series of attacks that resulted in the deaths of some 130 innocent people and injuries to countless more. It wasn’t the first round of attacks on France by Islamist extremists. We all remember the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market a few months ago, and the train thing… and on and on. Terrorism is nothing new for us, and it isn’t going away anytime soon. As sad as it is, it’s just something we have to deal with with tragic regularity. The actors and the causes change, but the story is always the same: cowardly masked men killing innocent people to send “a message.”

Anyway, as a Parisian, the attacks of 13 November cut pretty deep. Once I got past the initial shock and anger of the first few hours, my brain, my heart, whatever, shifted into a different gear: Now let’s make the bastards pay. I am not talking about a white hot rage here. No clenched jaw, no shaky fists, nothing like that. Just… find Daesh targets in Iraq and Syria, and start taking them out. Not “Muslims,” not blanket carpet-bombing, no indiscriminate violence. Daesh targets only. Vetted targets. Surgical. Precise. Effective. Payback. That’s all.

By the next day, it wasn’t even really about payback anymore. It was to some extent, sure, but it had become mostly about necessity: That death cult will keep sending people to kill us as long as we let them. The Paris attacks made it clear. That was the message this time.

Well, we got that message loud and clear. If we can’t coexist, then we won’t. It’s as simple as that.

As pro-peace as I am, I understand that some enemies cannot be reasoned with. It’s a shitty thing to have to admit, but sometimes, it’s necessary to completely eradicate an enemy. That’s just how it is when that enemy leaves you no choice.

There’s a lesson I’ve always remembered from Professor Goldthorpe’s 20th Century History class back in high school… a quote by Machiavelli I think, probably from The Prince. I could look it up but I prefer to share the version of it that I remember after all these years, because it’s where my mind goes on this. It’s my strategic A/B switch when it comes to choosing how to end a war.

“There are only two ways of treating a defeated enemy – give him the hand of reconciliation, or destroy him completely.”

The lesson was about how the Allies treated Germany after WWI: Germany was neither destroyed nor given the hand of reconciliation. Big mistake. The result was the 3rd Reich and WW2. (Contrast with how Japan was treated after WW2. Use examples. 500-750 words, and watch your spelling.)

The point being that there can be no reconciliation with Daesh. Not because France would have rejected it outright but because Daesh doesn’t want it and never will. Fact. The only option left is to destroy it completely, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Now… as a Parisian, it would be easy for me to succumb to fear or hatred, or both. People would probably give me a pass after what just happened. I could start blaming Muslims for Islamist terrorism. I could look at Middle-Eastern men with suspicion, even rancor… I could start looking for scapegoats and potential threats in immigrants, in the sons and grandsons of immigrants (even though I am an immigrant, and my grandmother was an immigrant, but I guess it’s different when it’s someone else, right? A stranger? Anyway…) I could start seeing the need for tougher immigration laws, for more aggressive raids and deportations, for higher walls at the border and more police presence on the streets, and more ID checks and crackdowns. I could totally go for that police state vibe and ethnic separation, and nativism passing itself off as “safety first,” but I can’t. There’s just no rational justification for it. That kind of reaction isn’t just irrational, it’s bullshit. Plus, nobody wants to live in a giant open air prison.

More to the point, even if you find yourself tempted by it, it’s exactly what terrorists want. That suspicion, that fear, that hatred, the prejudice behind it all, the us vs. them mentality… that’s why they do why they do. That’s how they hope to change us. They want to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims, between the west and the orient. They want to turn us into scared, angry little fascists.

Well, no. Fuck that. It isn’t going to work. I refuse to be manipulated by a dumbass death cult’s tired old mindfuck, and especially one as played out as that one. No way.

… Which is why it pains me to see so many of you take to social media to suddenly scream holy murder at the notion that Syrian refugees (reminder: the other people Daesh terrorists are trying to kill) might find asylum here, in the US.

“But… but… They could be terrorists!!! We can’t take that chance!!! Send them back to where they came from!!! we can’t have that here!!! It’s too dangerous!!!”

Yeah… Okay…

We’ve now reached Part 2 of this letter. Have a seat. It won’t take long.

Part 2: The part where I stop explaining things nicely.

First, let me explain something in terms that even the dumbest mouth-breather in the room will understand:

Fearing that Syrian refugees are secretly part of the terrorism and war that they are fleeing is about as dumb as fearing that Polish Jews fleeing the Nazis during WW2 were secretly Nazis.

Let that sink in for as long as it takes.

Tip: You don’t send refugees who are running from your enemy, an enemy that is trying to exterminate them, back towards that enemy because you’ve somehow convinced yourself that those refugees who came to you for help might really be the enemy in disguise. The raw stupidity and xenophobic hatred that I am seeing on your anti-refugee threads this week makes my brain hurt.

Could there be one or two terrorists hidden in there somewhere? Sure. Maybe. It’s unlikely but possible. I’ll tell you what’s a lot more likely though: terrorists entering the country legally with tourist and student visas. Any day of the week. So… should we close the borders? Build a giant wall around the US? Nobody in or out who might be a secret Muslim? Microchip people? Assign them armed chaperons? Force them to carry remote control mines over their hearts?

How much fear are you in the mood for? We can totally add a side of police state to go with it. Barbed wire is super cheap if you buy it in bulk.

Fact: The vetting process for refugees is no joke. If you want to infiltrate a country like Greece? Okay. Refugee trains are a decent way of doing it. Infiltrating a country like the US though? Trying as a refugee is just about the dumbest and slowest strategy imaginable (and probably the best way of getting yourself caught). Statistically speaking, refugees are the least likely to be terrorists of all foreign residents of any country.

“But what about the Boston Marathon bombers?”

I’m glad you asked. Via The Economist (not exactly a socialist rag, last time I checked):

“For our readers wondering whether the Boston bombers were refugees: the Tsernaev brothers came with their parents to the US on a tourist visa in 2002—and then asked for asylum. They didn’t go through the refugee resettlement process. They were not refugees but asylees (though the two terms often get confused).”

So right off the bat, you can stop crying big fat scary crocodile tears about the threat of fake refugees. It’s the least likely terrorist threat there is.

Okay. Now that we’ve covered that, let’s get to the real point of this letter: Let’s talk about courage for a minute. Remember courage?

Here’s a tip: If you really want to stand up to terrorists, if you really want to show them that you don’t give a shit about their stupid jihad party and their silly costumes, what you do is you don’t go into full-on multimedia meltdown mode every time some preacher-turned-political pundit tells you to on the AM radio. That’s for starters.

Are you getting the gist yet, or are you still chewing on that social media panic sandwich? Because if you need a minute to calm down, that’s cool, I guess.

Second, if you really want to show terrorists that their stupid jihad party is super lame, what you do is you take in the refugees they were trying to kill. That’s right: If you aren’t going to pick up a rifle to go fight them on their turf, that’s how you make your stand: You take in the people they were trying to kill and you bring them over to where you are, and you protect them. And if all the sad little terrorists bitch about it because they want iPads and HBO too, that’s just too fucking bad. That’s the whole point.

So to recap, what you don’t do is freak out and act like panicked little trolls all over TV and the internets, especially on social media, where terrorists can see you pissing your pants en masse. Why? Because when they see you collectively turn into what you’ve turned into this week, they just end up giving each other high-fives for a job well done.

Is it starting to sink in? No? Not yet? Okay. There’s more.

You want to be the world’s big bad sheepdogs, right? The world’s biggest badasses? All right. Then act like the world’s big bad sheepdogs. Act like badasses: Show some courage. Show some character. Protect people who need protecting. Don’t throw them to the wolves because a handful of TV assholes who are desperate for attention during yet another election cycle have convinced you that they are all coming to murder you in your sleep.

I mean… look at yourselves, hiding behind imaginary walls and throwing shade at defenseless people you should be providing shelter for. Protect them, damn it. If not because you want to, if not because it’s the right thing to do, then because it is the most overt act of defiance against the forces of chaos and terror there is (short of mailing Daesh terrorists all of your old CDs of Celine Dion and Kenny G). That alone should be reason enough to open your doors to them: to show that terror has no power over you, over us; that we won’t let fear turn us into enraged hateful dumbfucks.

Collectively, we could be an example to the world. Right now. Today. We could be showing the entire world what character and leadership look like, but instead we get this shit:

Over and over and over and over and over again. Millions of stupid chickenshit comments like those. It’s beyond embarrassing.

How brave! How righteous! How Christ-like even, for a lot of you who claim to be Christ-followers! I’m sure Jesus would have slammed his door in their faces too and told them to go back to their country. I mean… why would he risk giving shelter to dirty shady refugees, right? What if they were Roman sympathizers? Who knows what they might really be up to. I mean… how do you really know, right? You should only help people you know, and even then, not too much because it might make them lazy or something. You know… generosity begets dependence. (Damn moochers.) But I digress…

All of you out there screaming at people who mean you no harm, who turn to you for help because the damn plaque says they should, what happened to you? When did you turn into wet rags? You’re all acting like horrible little cowards, hiding behind safe little screens and typing at terror victims that you should be trying to help to go back to their countries instead… For shame!

What’s wrong with you? Seriously. How did you let yourselves get this way?

It could be you out there someday, you know, looking for a safe haven. Not so long ago, that’s what brought a lot of your ancestors to these very shores. They were running from oppression too, from persecution, even from death. They would all be ashamed of you right now, the way you’re acting. Every last one of them. The fear, the hatred, the rage, the utter batshit nonsense of it all… I know they would be ashamed of you because I sure as shit am.

]]>http://olivierblanchard.net/an-open-letter-to-angry-people-who-are-afraid-of-refugees/feed/08701Listen to FIR #7 with Shel Holtz, Ike Pigott, Sharon McIntosh and mehttp://olivierblanchard.net/listen-to-fir-7-with-shel-holtz-ike-pigott-sharon-mcintosh-and-me/
http://olivierblanchard.net/listen-to-fir-7-with-shel-holtz-ike-pigott-sharon-mcintosh-and-me/#respondMon, 02 Nov 2015 17:09:43 +0000http://olivierblanchard.net/?p=8694Continue Reading →]]>I was fortunate enough to participate in episode #7 of For Immediate Release this week, Hosted By Shel Holtz. My fellow panelists were Sharon McIntosh, president of And Then Communications (and co-host of the EE Voice podcast on the FIR Podcast Network); and Ike Pigott, communications strategist at Alabama Power.

On this week’s show, we shared our views on the follow topics:

You’re probably underestimating how much of your content gets shared via SMS (text messaging). Is there anything you can do to make sharing your content via SMS easier? Would you want to?

By the end of next year, all 100,000 employees of Royal Bank of Scotland will be using Facebook at Work as their internal social network. It’s Facebook’s biggest win among the 300 or so companies that have signed on to the enterprise version of the world’s biggest social network.

Employees who aren’t engaged, along with those who are actively disengaged, are costing U.S. businesses somewhere around half a trillion dollars a year. Is there more communications can do to improve engagement levels? (Like providing channels that give employees more of a voice?)

South by Southwest ignited a firestorm when it canceled two panels dealing with online harassment after receiving threats of violence should the panels proceed. How well did SxSW handle the crisis?

Here’s a new word for PR practitioners to learn: Blockchain. It sounds geeky today. It could become a big deal sooner than you think.

As politics increasingly define media companies, are there implications for media relations?

Communicators struggle with “big data,” but you ain’t seen nothing yet as new data on visual communication is starting to appear.

In his Tech Report, Dan York reports on Google Play’s solicitation of podcast URLs as it plans to add podcasts to the content users can stream, the introduction of a Tor messaging tool, topics the Internet Engineering Task Force is tackling, and a country-by-country breakdown of freedom on the Internet.

And if fiction is more your speed, check out The Nemesis Engines, Vol.1: The Peacemakers. Think Jules Verne meets H.G. Wells, with a World War I twist. (Jules Verne doesn’t actually meet Wells. It’s a figure of speech. We’re talking genres, not… people.)